Linux-Advocacy Digest #102, Volume #31 Thu, 28 Dec 00 17:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: Microsoft tentacles squirm deeper into software hosting ("Kelsey Bjarnason")
Re: This is just funny! ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Please don't laugh. (Form@C)
Re: Why Advocacy? ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Profitability of Linux being a challenge ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Operating Systems? Where would you go next? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: So how do we get from here to there? ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Kelsey Bjarnason" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft tentacles squirm deeper into software hosting
Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2000 21:32:41 GMT
[snips]
"Nick Condon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> [From The Register - www.theregister.co.uk]
>
> Your PC is about to become obsolete.
Except that you'll still actually need it, even under the proposed
methodology. Seems an odd claim to make.
> Microsoft's recent acquisition of
> 'hosted solutions' outfit Great Plains Software for a cool $1 billion
> marks a significant advance towards the 'Final Solution' of reducing
> software users to mere paying guests at the M$ digital banquet, and PCs
> to mere access devices.
Ah, see? PCs will still be necessary. It would be nice if the author could
track his own concepts for more than a paragraph.
> Great Plains makes point-and-drool software for small to medium-sized
"Point-and-drool software"? I assume he means "point-and-click", by which
we can conclude he means KDE applications, for example.
> online businesses. It also successfully hosts such software, and this
> bit, far more than the much-touted (by M$ PR bunnies) leg up in the Mom
"PR bunnies"? I wasn't aware that anyone other than Plyboy employed people
termed "bunnies"; perhaps he's suggesting that actual rabbits are being
employed? It would be nice if the author could actually say what he meant;
even if we assume "M$", whoever that may be, was the most incompetent
organization on the planet, the notion that they employ rabbits as PR
anything seems a little unlikely. Advertising props, perhaps.
> Don't be fooled by the chirpy half-truths in the company press release,
> in which we are told that "the acquisition represents a major step in
> [Microsoft's] entry into the small and medium business applications
> market."
>From this, we see an implication that "M$" above is actually some form of
contraction of "Microsoft"; perhaps the author would be better off reading a
little, rather than writing; if nothing else, he'd learn that the contracted
form of "Microsoft" is "MS". Or perhaps he wasn't actually talking about
Microsoft at all, but rather, megadollars, in which case, the entire
paragraph seems to have little real relevance to anything else being said.
> Utter rubbish. It's Great Plains' success as an Application Service
> Provider (ASP) that most tickles the Beast's hideously scaly underbelly.
Great Plains is a favorite of Satan? How odd.
> So Redmond owns the software you use and controls access to your data.
It does? That would be the city of Redmond, would it? Sorry, but I'm not
aware of anything even suggesting that the guy pumping gas at the local Arco
has any ownership whatsoever in any software or data I may have. Perhaps
the author meant the Redmond civic government? Nope, doesn't seem to be the
case. Again, it would be nice if the author could say what he meant;
apparently he's become so lost in whatever creative daze he's fallen into
that a near total separation from reality has set in.
> It's for your benefit, after all; it's cheaper than owning it, and you
> do love a bargain, don't you?
Wading through the author's half-formed concepts, mis-matched ideas,
fractured thematic development and the like, we can conclude that the
implication here is that Microsoft is or will be offering a service to its
customers which costs the customers less than current methods of
accomplishing the same goals. So far, this doesn't seem like a bad thing.
> It's more secure too, we are told, because
> you communicate directly via a pre-encrypted client-to-client link in
> which you have no opportunity to stuff things up. Hell, you don't even
> know or have access to the key -- and what could be more secure than
> that?
Well, as the author describes it, it does sound secure; encrypted data
transfer? Much better than many current approaches in which data is often
transferred about unencrypted. Now, I'm not a crypotography expert, and the
author's comments on this don't suggest that he is, either, but it occurs to
me that if I don't "have access to the key" for my data, then presumably
nobody else, other than the server I'm licensing from, does either. This
suggests that the guy in the next cubicle can't steal my key because I've
done something foolish but all-too-common such as writing it down or saving
it on a conveniently-labelled floppy. The only issues would be whether or
not the keys themselves are secure against theft, and whether I trust the
service provider with the keys; this would depend entirely upon the
implementation methods which are not examined here. So far, the author
makes a fairly good case in favour of the new methodology, while skipping
over a few points which could be worthy of consideration.
> Don't mind that the Beast has to maintain access to your network so it
> can bill you accurately for use of its, not your, software.
Satan owns software? I do wish the author would leave his religious
fanaticism out of what appears, on the surface, to be a quasi-technical
article. I'm starting to suspect that the document has nothing to do with
computing at all, and instead is a conspiracy piece by one of the "barcodes
contain 666" kooks.
> Don't mind
> that the accounting is handled by a funky little chip pre-installed on
> your mobo which awards you the distinction of being a 'trusted client'.
Why would Satan be implanting a chip on my "mobo"? Presumably, if he wished
to mark me, he'd do something a little more constructive - from his point of
view - such as marking me, personally. at least then he'd be able to track
me when I was using a different machine, or doing laundry, or whatever.
> It's all for your protection. And don't mind that the magic chip
> measures how much time you've spent using the software you no longer
> own. This is all about trust; and trust is paramount, isn't it?
Own? Software? How much software has ever been owned by the consumer?
Here's a typical example of a license agreement, provided neither by
Microsoft nor Satan, with company names elided: "You are purchasing a
license to use [company] software. The software is owned by and remains the
property of [company]. It is protected by..." Feel free to check almost
any software license and see whether or not the end user owns it. Even the
GNU public license tells you that you must, among other things,
"conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate
copyright notice and disclaimer of warranty; keep intact all the notices
that refer to this License and to the absence of any warranty; and
distribute a copy of this License along with the Library". This is hardly
consistent with the user owning it. Certainly he has a license to use it,
in specific ways with specific requirements, but if he actually owned the
software, one would assume he could repackage it however he desired, with or
without any of the notices, since it is, after all, his property.
Given this, one wonders what the point about "software you no longer own"
is, and why Satan's ownership or control over it has any relevance to the
supposed intent of the document.
> All right, it's unfortunate that your data has to be stored on the M$
> trusted network
One would hope that a "Megabuck trusted network" would be a reasonably good
thing; fast, accessible to the user from a wide variety of locations, etc;
this sounds like a good thing.
> along with the software you use, but this could not be
> helped. Your PC no longer needs, or even has, a hard drive. It has,
> instead, a non-volatile ROM chip which identifies all the software
> you're eligible to be billed for using, the amount of time you've spent
> playing with it, and your credit details. It's brilliant, but God help
> you if there's a stuff-up.
Now this last point, assuming "stuff-up" means "fault in the system" is, in
fact, a real concern. We've likely all seen servers that stopped
responding, whether because of an overload, a major connector going down, a
concerted effort to attack the machine, and the like. One might suspect
that an organization (or an entity, since the discussion now seems to be
centered on Satan) who was serious about providing this sort of
functionality, would have multiple redundant and geographically separated
servers, so that outages in one location do not necessarily mean inability
to access one's data and/or software. Then again, since the discussion
again seems to be about Satan, one might conclude that the Infernal One may
prefer a single server, subject to these things, for the express purpose of
taunting and infuriating the users.
> Unable to connect your otherwise worthless and virtually empty PC to the
> remote Microsoft server where your software and personal files are
> stored,
Why would Satan use, or at least restrict himself, to Microsoft servers?
Surely the Beast is capable of working his infernal will upon virtually any
server? Further, he could accomplish his goals much more readily by
ignoring the servers entirely and affecting the communications
infrastructure instead. The author's point is becoming more tenuous.
> you have a problem and a half. Perhaps a Winter ice storm has
> crippled your ISP; perhaps you've neglected to 'fund' the magic mobo
> chip; perhaps you're simply broke.
A moment ago, the suggestion was that Satan would be implanting the chip on
the "mobo"; why would "you", which in this context appears to be the
customer, fund it? I do wish the author would follow his own ideas for more
than a paragraph.
> Generally, a broke company can do limited business so long as the lights
> stay on, and so maintain hopes of extracting itself from imminent ruin
> by the force of determined cleverness. Not yours, sucker. No, your
> billing software is out of reach; your customer database is curtained
> off; and so the means of rescue are off limits. You're flying blind.
There's an odd implication in here. Apparently, if a company is so broke,
so short on cash, that the best it can manage is to keep the lights on, it
is somehow Satan's fault that he's going to charge them for access to
services he provides. By this reasoning, we should conclude that power
companies, gas companies, transit companies, insurance companies, internet
providers, phone companies and so on and so forth are all to be blamed for
charging for their services, and that it is because they do that the company
is unable to stay in business. While I may admire the implication that all
services, goods and the rest should be free, I'm not sure how viable this is
under our current socioeconomic structure. Apparently the author, having
already migrated from technical discussion to theology, is now discussing
politics, specifically an overthrow of the governemnt and the entire
structure under which we live, and replacing it with something more in line
with his personal ideals. Again, I rather admire the notion, but I fail to
see how this is Satan's fault, nor how the proposed overthrow of the
economic system ties into the intial, or even subsequent, premises.
> We hope you printed out all your crucial files; but as the Beast charges
> you -- through its trusted-client magic chip -- for each hard-copy page
> you dare to make, and because you thought you'd just economise on that,
> there is no paper backup of whom you owe and who owes you. Truly, you
> are fucked.
Well, that would be true if you were out of paper, and couldn't find someone
willing to donate it, or out of electricity because you couldn't pay your
electrical bill, or your inter-office network were down because you couldn't
pay the carrier fees; again, short of the implied overthrow of the current
socioeconomic structure, I'm not sure how this applies to the theses, nor do
I see how this is to be blamed on Satan.
> You search in vain for a temporary remedy. The UCITA (Uniform Computer
> Information Transaction Act) tells you that all the bizarre rights M$
> claims,
How does money claim any rights? Yet another truly unusual idea offered by
the author, and yet another idea being apparently totally unrelated to any
of the fundamental theses of the message.
> whether you read or agreed to them or not, are in full force,
Ah; here there is another interesting point. The author seems to suggest
that, as a party to a contract, you were willing to enter into it as long as
the other side fulfilled its obligations under the contract - providing a
service - but that you, yourself, were not, either through ignorance or
other reasons, and therefore the expectation on the other party's part, that
you actually meet your contractually-required terms, is unreasonable. One
might assume that the author suggests that simply because I signed a
contract stating I would pay $200 an hour for legal representation, my
lawyer should not expect me to actually pay him for representing me, simply
because I failed to read the contract, or because I say "I didn't really
mean it." I wonder how well the author thinks this sort of thing would hold
up in the real world? "Oh, yes, you pay us $30 a month for electrical
power, but we really didn't mean to agree with the contract with you, so
we're not going to provide electricity to you. Do keep sending us the
checks, though." No, I'm not sure I can see this working. The author seem
to have failed to make his point here.
> and that all the common-sense rights which you thought you should have
> are null and void.
What, one wonders, are "common-sense rights"? Is not our legal system at
least in some part as complex as it is precisely because "common sense" and
"rights" are but loosely related?
> Damn. Corporate flacks have been writing legislation again, and you have
> no legal recourse. None at all.
>
> Redmond has spoken; the case is closed.
Redmond again? So we've gone from software licensing, through religion,
through politics, and now we're examining civic control of "cases"?
All things considered, I would seriously question whether the author had any
point to make during the entire process of constructing his original
document. Having drawn in, but failing to relate, such diverse fields as he
has, he has left the reader with more than a little uncertainty as to what
the underlying reason for the document was, let alone whether or not the
document achieved its desired goal.
About the extent of what seems to be meaningfully gained from the document
are the following points:
1) Satan is going to implant chips on "mobo"s.
2) We should overthrow the socioeconomic system.
3) The city of Redmond decides "cases".
4) Satan likes Great Plains.
5) The author makes a good, albeit incomplete, argument in favour of the
only technical issues discussed.
6) Someone is apparently using rabbits in a PR role.
Personally, I like point 6 best; at least it has some human interest level
to it. Point 5 should have been better examined, to make a more significant
case for it, and the author has almost totally failed to give compelling
reason to consider point 2 seriously. Point 3 is, from the document, at
least, sheer assertion, as are 1 and 4, although one can presume that a
pentagram and a sacrificial chicken might be sufficient to evoke the entity
to ask him for validation of the points.
All in all, a truly amusing piece of writing. Enjoyable, confusing,
eclectic, disjointed and lacking an underlying structure to hold it
together, but amusing.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: This is just funny!
Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2000 15:37:28 -0600
"Charlie C. Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Here are all these Windows people debating
> the merits of THEIR OS and the price of
> THEIR OS just keeps doubling every release!
What are you talking about?
Windows 9x's price has stayed exactly the same throughout it's lifetime,
except for the $25 upgrade price for WinME instead of the normal $89.
Windows NT/2000 Pro's price has stayed the same as well. Retailing at about
$300 (street price closer to $200).
If you are trying to insinuate that when the Win9x line goes away, we'll be
forced to buy Win2k Pro, you're wrong. Whistler comes in 3 flavors.
Personal, Pro, and the various servers. Personal will most likely have the
same price tag as Win9x today.
Thus, if you take inflation into account, you will find that the price of
Windows has gone *DOWN* every release.
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Please don't laugh.
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Form@C)
Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2000 21:33:24 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bonnie) wrote in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>I'd like to look at Linux butthe only pc I can play with it on is a 25
>Mhz 486 with 4 meg of RAM and a 170 meg hard drive. Is there a free
>version of Linux that'll work on this and where can I find it?
>
according to the manual with Slackware 96 (nice old version!):
If you only have 4MB of ram make sure you disable any shadow ram in your
system's cmos settings. It can make the difference between a successful
installaition or a failed one. If you have 8 or more MB you will be ok
without doing this.
They reckon on an average installation taking 100-200MB of hard disk space,
although you can get a very basic system into as little as 20MB. Another
15MB will load shells, midnight commander etc. XFree86, with this distro,
takes 38MB with about another 12MB for X applications. You won't be running
KDE on this!
this adds up to 20+15+38+12=85MB of hard disk, so you can still set up a
swap partition (you'll need it).
your processor is fine but don't expect quick responses from the system if
you are running X!.
note that these early distributions don't include much in the way of
configuration programs to make life easy. You will need to edit most
configuration files by hand.
I don't know where you would find old distributions like this. Sorry.
--
Mick
Olde Nascom Computers - http://www.mixtel.co.uk
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Advocacy?
Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2000 16:33:29 -0500
J Sloan wrote:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > Linux is based on Unix - a 30-year-old operating system.
>
> and windows nt/2000 is based on vms - likewise very old.
>
> > It uses liberally formatted text files for its configuration. This is
> > incredible inefficient - computers don't understand text files -
>
> hoo boy, the clue meter just pegged to the left...
>
> > Unix does not by default encrypt incoming and outgoing data to and
> > from a network. There should be security alerts issued daily for
> > systems running nfs, ftp or telnet daemons.
>
> Ever heard of ssh, ssl, tcp wrappers?
>
> Yep, right out of the box with modern distros....
>
> BTW, "windows 2000 datacenter server" finally includes,
> of all things, a telnet server - welcome to the '70s, microsoft!
>
> OTOH, no clueful linux admin has used telnet for years -
> telnet et al are deprecated, ssh is the preferred protocol.
>
> > There is a tremendous amount of legacy within a Unix system.
>
> like the "C:>" prompt on a windows 2000 pee cee?
the _CP-M_ C:> prompt in LoseDOS 2000
>
> jjs
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
DNRC Minister of all I survey
ICQ # 3056642
H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
direction that she doesn't like.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (C) above.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
her behavior improves.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Profitability of Linux being a challenge
Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2000 16:36:48 -0500
Chad Myers wrote:
>
> "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:92d3gu$l0f$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > "Curtis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >
> > http://www.32bitsonline.com/article.php3?file=issues/200012/news200012051&pa
> > ge=1
> > >
> > > "Caldera Systems [Nasdaq: CALD] announced today another new executive.
> > > Edgie E. Donakey was named to the position of vice president and chief
> > > of staff. Coming with a long history at 3Com, Danakey will be
> > > responsible overseeing the integration of Caldera's many acquisitions
> > > particularly Santa Cruz Operations' (SCO) server software and
> > > professional services divisions . SCO was acquired earlier this fall."
> > >
> > > [....]
> > >
> > > "These two recent appointments are attempts to bring life to a battered
> > > Caldera who has seen its stock erode from a high of $33.00 to close
> > > today at only $2.00."
> > >
> > > "The appointment have failed to produce any excitement in the markets as
> > > it was dragged down by Linux distribution leader RedHat. RedHat [Nasdaq:
> > > RHAT] announced today that it was cutting 20 jobs and closing three
> > > office in order to conserve cash and help further RedHat's push towards
> > > profitability."
> > >
> > > "Linux stocks, in general, have falled out of favour with investors. In
> > > spite of today's huge market rally, Linux stocks such as RedHat and VA
> > > Linux Systems [Nasdaq: LNUX] have failed to move up. Instead, both have
> > > moved further into the red."
> >
> >
> > Interesting graphs:
> > http://quotes.nasdaq.com/quote.dll?chart=3&page=charting&mode=basics&symbol=
> > CALD%60&selected=CALD%60
> > http://quotes.nasdaq.com/quote.dll?chart=4&page=charting&mode=basics&symbol=
> > LNUX%60&selected=LNUX%60
> > http://quotes.nasdaq.com/quote.dll?chart=10&page=charting&mode=basics&symbol
> > =APLX%60&selected=APLX%60
> > http://quotes.nasdaq.com/quote.dll?chart=10&page=charting&mode=basics&symbol
> > =SUNW%60&selected=SUNW%60
> > http://quotes.nasdaq.com/quote.dll?chart=4&page=charting&mode=basics&symbol=
> > RHAT%60&selected=RHAT%60
> > http://quotes.nasdaq.com/quote.dll?chart=10&page=charting&mode=basics&symbol
> > =MSFT%60&selected=MSFT%60
>
> MSFT is a special case. None of the other companies have been witchhunted
> by the government.
None of the other companies operate as a criminal organization.
Hope that helps, buttwipe.
>
> MSFT has posted above-excepted earnings the past couple quarters. Their
> enterprise revenue has been growing very rapidly.
>
> And, oh yeah, MSFT makes a profit.
So does the Mafia...and your point is?
>
> > > What is it that these distributors are doing that makes it so hard for
> > > them to prosper while distributing and providing support services for
> > > the fastest growing OS market in history? The OSS model and approach to
> > > software development and production is advocated as being profitable and
> > > yet these leading Linux distributors are struggling. I see these
> > > articles popping up time and again.
> >
> > You can probably blame GPL for that.
> > It's *very* hard to make profit, or even just to make both ends meet when
> > you have
>
> When you have what? (I assume you got cut off for some reason)
>
> It's *very* hard to make a profit with GPL when it's expected you give away
> the fruits of your labor for free. That's the problem.
>
> -Chad
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
DNRC Minister of all I survey
ICQ # 3056642
H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
direction that she doesn't like.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (C) above.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
her behavior improves.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.os.linux,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.os2.apps,comp.os.os2.misc,comp.os.os2.networking.tcp-ip
Subject: Re: Operating Systems? Where would you go next?
Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2000 15:46:56 -0600
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> > From a single-user workstation perspective, you have a point. From a
server
> > perspective, fragmentation is basicly a non-issue. In a single-user
> > environment, files are typically served up one at a time, or at most a
few
> > at a time. Having files sequentially on disk is beneficial since it
means
> > there is less disk thrashing.
> >
> > In a multi-user server perspective, any given server might be serving up
> > hundreds of files simultaneously, and thus the disk head will be jumping
all
> > over the place. A filesystem that fragments may actually be beneficial
here
> ^^^
> Note the weasel-word.
>
>
> > because it will average data across the drives, making it possible that
data
> > from different requests is closer together.
>
>
> Of course, breaking up a read-request because you have to head-seek
> due to fragmentation is *always* more efficient than continouing
> to read down the same track.
You just have no reading comprehension, do you? Nowhere did I say *always*,
and I specifically said that in a single-user environment a defragmented
drive will give better results.
Your statement falls apart theough when you are servicing hundreds of disk
requests at the same time. A defragmented drive makes no difference here
because your drive head is moving all over the disk to service those other
requests.
> Yeah, right. And boiling water freezes faster than 1-degree C water.
Learn to read.
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: So how do we get from here to there?
Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2000 16:42:29 -0500
Bob Hauck wrote:
>
> On Wed, 27 Dec 2000 13:23:50 -0600, Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >Have you looked at RAM prices lately? 128MB of RAM is $35. 256MB sticks
> >are going for $75. You can put 1GB of memory in your computer for less you
> >could put 16MB a few years ago.
>
> *If* you have an up-to-date motherboard to put them in. There are
> millions of people with boards that are only three years old and have
> EDO rather than SDRAM. That's going to cost more that $35, if you can
> find it.
>
> The other alternative is to upgrade the motherboard, which also will
> cost more than $35.
>
> The price of the RAM itself is not the only thing to consider when
> making claims about how bloat doesn't matter.
Erik never has been good at identifying the big picture.
>
> --
> -| Bob Hauck
> -| To Whom You Are Speaking
> -| http://www.haucks.org/
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
DNRC Minister of all I survey
ICQ # 3056642
H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
direction that she doesn't like.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (C) above.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
her behavior improves.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list by posting to comp.os.linux.advocacy.
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Advocacy Digest
******************************
